Shugyosha

Hi Dwain, I'll guess neither: I believe that this is a shinto sword so too late for pure Yamashiro tradition and I don't think I see konuka hada - I think it is mainly a different flavour of itame (larger) with some mokume going on in the fourth picture. The extended kissaki is something seen in blades from around Keicho and in Satsuma blades throughout the shinto period. The ara nie in the picture before last suggest Satsuma also, but the tang isn't what I'd expect so I'd be inclined to discount that attribution. So, having discounted the impossible, all that can be left is "dunno"...but a shinto dunno as opposed to koto. Can you get a clearer picture of the boshi?

Hi Andy, You need to be certain of whether or not the signature is genuine or not first as that will affect the price, however, £400 is on the low side for a mounted wakizashi that is unsigned, so you need to post more and better pictures of the blade and fittings for a better opinion on this.

"Buy the sword, not the paper" is a good rule of thumb but, at its essence it suggests that the buyer should rely on their own judgement over and above that of the issuing organisation and perhaps also that they are of dubious intellect or should hold their manhood cheap if they do otherwise. I am occasionally guilty of false modesty, but I'm fairly confident that my own evaluation of a piece might, in most circumstances, lead to a different conclusion to that of an NBTHK or NTHK shinsa panel. I agree with Barry in that I think that there is no substitute for taking one's time and doing one's homework but that so that a piece can be assessed in the context of any accompanying paperwork and any information provided by the seller that might affect the price: this is all part of the picture and might lead to a different conclusion than buying solely on the basis of papers alone. However, for me there is no shame in admitting that I don't have balls of steel and that I prefer to have a financial risk underwritten to the greatest extent possible.

Looks like Omi Kami...but I'm struggling with the rest. If you compare with Markus Sesko's list of smiths with this title you might come up with something.

Thanks Guido. I really ought to have got that.

What Grant said is the rule of thumb with yari: a short kerikubi (the bit between the blade and the tang) points to shinto rather than koto manufacture. My initial feeling from looking at this bit was shinto but, as Peter says the paper suggests late Muromachi jidai, so there is perhaps some discrepancy here. The paper attributes this unsigned yari to a smith working in Yamato province called Kane (?). I can't find the second kanji in Markus Sesko's list of kanji used in swordsmiths' names and neither does he list a smith signing with this "Kane" kanji working in Yamato in the late Muromachi period. This isn't comprehensive research - just a quick flick through the sources I have to hand so please apply with a pinch of salt, however, suffice it to say that my suspicions would be aroused by this. It doesn't look like the dimensions of the spear are recorded on the paper either which seems odd and so it is hard to judge the item and papers in this context. The rubbing of the tang does appear to be from the spear, but this could have been changed relatively easily. I can't make out the name of the organisation that issued the paper so, again this would be a detractor from my point of view: knowing who issued it and what weight to give to their opinion would help. Given this, (if you are buying) I would be suspicious of the seller or at least treating the item as an unsigned, unpapered shinto yari and mentally adjust the price for these factors and proceed, or not, accordingly.

The United Kingdom's gift to the world. Couldn't find the retching and scraping my tongue emoji for some reason.

You know as much as anyone this side of the Channel. The UK Government and Members of Parliament are doing their best to stitch up a situation where it either doesn't happen or happens in name but isn't substantially different from how things stand currently. My money would be on the second situation following an extension of the March 29th deadline but who knows.

He only got that 50% correct.

Muromachi +1.

I think it's genuine, but it's wrecked. In that condition it could be anything - the shape and condition of the tang might give a clue as to time frame if unsigned, but beyond that...

Hi Omar, I've just seen your post. I think the last part of number 1 may be 磨つまし (migatsumashi) - 磨 means to polish or burnish. Unfortunately without the bit before it it doesn't mean very much. Number 2 is the date: 慶応 三年 - Keio san nen - third year of Keio but I think this is an error as it is written above as (and indeed is on the tang) fourth year.

Hi Benno, I think you need to post some more details, including some pictures of the entire blade and fittings (including any tassel which varied in colour depending on rank) and supporting paperwork. If the blade has a signature it will be beneath the hilt and you will need to take this off by removing the retaining peg - if it is more complex than a bamboo peg that simply pushes in and out then you might want to get some instructions as to how to remove it rather than damage it. Ultimately, it boils down to whatever paperwork that you might have or be able to discover that ties the sword to Teshima. Even without this, if it is a quality blade it may have some value but that will depend on the maker, its age (it might not be a wartime blade) and its condition. It is not unusual for older blades to be carried to war and one might reasonably expect that a higher ranking officer might have one of these or a better quality modern blade rather than the standard mass-produced blade. Otherwise, welcome to the forum and I hope we can have a look at a piece of your family history. If you are able to add your given name to your posts then you will be compliant with forum rules as we go by those rather than a handle.

Sorry Uwe, you are correct.

It might be "bu" as in weapon: 武 I'm not convinced that it is "Osafune" - the "fune" kanji doesn't look like 船 to me, but I'm struggling with the picture and could easily be wrong.

I think that there's perhaps enough patina on the tang for it to have been made or shortened as early as the mid 19th century. It looks like there was some rust near the kissaki as there is still a little minor pitting left and I wonder if the suriage was done to save the end portion of a corroded blade. What's the nagasa? I've no idea about the notches on the tang - they appear on some swords but, unless they are markings to help link a blade to koshirae, I've never heard a plausible explanation for them. For a cheap blade, it looks like it has some quality about it judging by the hada and it's hard not to like value for money. You might want to add some pictures of the detail in the hamon as that might help date it.

I don't know why, but everytime I see this thread title, I see this:

Maybe the second kanji is the cursive form of "Masa" - 正. There's an entry for a gunto smith in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan: TAKAMASA (高正), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – “Takamasa” (高正), real name Yasuda Yoshitarō (安田芳太郎), born April 7th 1912, he worked as guntō smith The date is the 10th month in the 18th year of Showa, which is 1943 - so you have that correct. I'm not an expert on military swords so you will have to look to others for the meaning of the stamps.

Hi Chris, It means potato vines. It refers to the inazuma in the hamon of Satsuma blades and is a key kantei point for this group of smiths. Another suggestion regarding the kasane would be that it was made this way to meet the request of the buyer: Satsuma blades were well known for being of robust construction and perhaps it was made for someone who couldn't swing such a heavy blade. I can't see any sign of o hada or other evidence of overpolishing from these photographs. I'm pretty sure that, if I moved some stuff around, I could fit it into my sword chest.

Hi Dion, There's some good information here: http://www.nihontocraft.com/japanese_sword_papers.html#japanese_sword_4

I'm very much with John in that I like swords that were primarily designed as weapons but which are incidentally (accidentally will do too) beautiful. Some tasteful additions (well cut hi for example) can create a pleasing effect but on the sh!tlist are things like overdone horimono (too big, too many) and overly complex hamon or which are too wide and destroy the balance between hamon and hada. This extends to fittings too - if one of the Soten masters was making tsuba on my front lawn, I'd close the curtains and do the ironing.

Hi Brendon, The subject of the naming of blades is not as straightforward as "tanto, wakizashi, katana/tachi". Blades of different lengths had different names at various points in Japanese history. During the Kamakura period a "koshigatana" was worn - this is the forerunner of the tanto. Also, a blade called a "uchigatana" could be worn, these could be a little longer than the koshigatana and had koshirae with a tsuba and either were paired with a tachi. A longer version of the koshigatana could also be worn as a single weapon and was worn edge up and pushed through the sash as per the wakizashi. In the Nambokucho period, the tanto became a "sunnobi tanto" (a longer tanto) and was again paired with a tachi. In the Muromachi period there was a movement towards wearing two swords pushed through the sash and edge upwards as there was a move away from mounted archery in war and towards spearmen. In the Muromachi period the uchigatana surfaced again as a spearman's side arm. In the early 1500s there was a trend towards the use of katate uchi, a katana length blade used with a shorter tsuka (essentially still an uchigatana in terms of how it was worn) and with one hand. Later on this reverted to a sword for two-handed use worn edge upwards through the sash - the katana. This might be paired with a short sword, but the use of the katana and wakizashi as a badge of office or status didn't really take off until the Edo period. The demarcations of blade lengths we have today are largely based on the Edo Bakufu's regulations. Sorry, that's a bad precis of Markus Sesko's encyclopaedia of Japanese swords with a mixture of my own knowledge thrown in. It may not be 100% correct, so apologies for any errors, but it is quite a convoluted part of this subject.

Hi Brendon, The classic tanto form that predominates is hira zukuri - shinogi zukuri tanto are normally the tips of broken katana or wakizashi that have been salvaged or copies made by someone who doesn't know better. Other tanto forms popped up from time to time, but whilst most of the time form follows function, the Japanese were as prone as other nations to being turned on by novelty and the desire to sell/ own something out of the ordinary or may simply experimented with the less usual blade forms. Some links here to articles on tanto blade forms, cutting efficiency and the durability of swords: http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/tanto.htm http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/niku.htm http://www.nihontocraft.com/Suishinshi_Masahide.html There are other articles on these sites that you might find interesting if you have a hunt around.

+1

Hi Nick, Like you, my feeling is that, logically, yaki otoshi can't exist on one side of the blade only but that's just a feeling and not borne from any metallurgical knowledge. Consequently, I'd be looking for another explanation for the lack or apparent lack of hamon in that area: a false hamon where the kesho has worn off in one area only or maybe some scuffing of the blade creating a shiny spot that hides the hamon underneath or perhaps the hamon is more tired in this area than elsewhere and doesn't show clearly. I'm scratching around a bit.